Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

UndisclosedTalent : this guy has brilliant comedic timing

Lucas Rodmo : He forgot the government efficiency. Brazilian government huge taxes and nothing comes back to population in terms of education, Health or anything else

Dave2D Vlogs : camera man perving out at 10:36

red watch : set speed to 1.5

Hristo Stefanov : I am very disappointed, that such low quality "science" was allowed on TEDx and that this video gets so much approval on YouTube. The video shows bending statistics and mistaking correlations for causation. Let us start with the statistics - why don't we first clear up the rich people who got rich by inheritance, who got rich abroad and who got rich from oil and natural gas industry. It makes no sense to make a video "where is best to become rich" and to use Iceland as an argument that the North European social states are a good place to become rich, when in fact Iceland's billionaire Thor Björgólfsson became rich in East Europe and not in Iceland. If we clear the data for Norway, Denmark ect, we can get a different picture. And even after that - when dealing with so small numbers - 100 people here - 500 people there, we a have chance and other factors that are not accounted for. Then we get to education. A statistical correlation is not an argument. When I was a student there was a German textbook in statistics where they had an example with real data for 2 regions of Germany where in the one region there were both more Storks per square km and a higher birthrate under the human population. So here we had a correlation more storks - more babies. Is this a proof that storks bring the babies? NO. Of course not. Exactly as the correlation with the free education is not an argument. Look at East Europe. Education in East Europe is free. Are there more rich people than in countries where the education is not free? No. Harald Eia made a very poor TED talk. And 96% approval rating at the time I am writing this comment is disturbing, because this might be a sign that the audience is not involved in critical thinking while watching such videos on YouTube.

AeroMatter : To be a billionaire in Scandinavia is to do business in the US, bank in the Cayman islands, and lobby in protectionist Europe. It doesn't matter where they live or where they come from.

Anderson Clemente : Brazil: High taxes, strong unions, generous welfare state, and a shit country to live. Do not believe in government, freedom is wealth!

Reezy : I'm curious to know the proportion of people that went from "riches to rags" in various countries, think that would also be an interesting indicator of social mobility.

Titouan Paitier : We all know it, Scandinavian countries are arguably the most advanced in the world, in virtually every sector. There's a reason why you never hear about them in the news - ever...

Fredrik valmestadrød : I feel like debunking some myths. its a common misconception that Norway is wealthy because of oil. While it is true that it has had an impact on our economy and it gives us more security if the Norwegian economy goes through a crisis. One must not forget that most of the profits we make from oil doesn't even enter into the state budget. It gives us great security as a nation, but we'd probably still be pretty well off without it. It's estimated that women entering the work force has generated more value than our venture into the oil business.

Naweed sediq : Norway is rich because of oil just like Qatar and UAE

KONG HALVOR : 10:37 oh la la <3

Maximilian : Okay so the take home message is this: get free MSc or engineering degree in Scandinavia and then move to the US or other low tax high paying country. Thanks. I hope the Eia understands that brain drain is a real problem for Scandinavia.

Nivesh Proag : 10:35 made me feel I was caught staring

Robert Bohrer : This guy makes a lot of assumptions.

Christoffer Engström : Hehe, when the camera man is stalking someone in the audience and his kamera goes live... 10:39

GetMeThere1 : Nice technique: Surprise people with fascinating and irrefutable facts -- then put insert own, unproven ideas as the causes, LOL. Just one example (and it's just my assertion, but you'll see what I mean): I'll bet people of recent Scandinavian heritage have ALSO done disproportionately well in the US -- even subject to the "US conditions" which hold people back compared to Scandinavia. Overall, this is why "Social Science" is laughed at among real scientists...

Steve Cobb : Good comedian + bad sociologist = laughable statistics. First, selection bias: Nordic countries (total population about 25M) compared with the entire US (total population 310M). No mention of other European countries, and no mention of individual US states. Better to compare the Nordic countries with New England. Second, confounding variables: Nordic countries have many other traits, and many other poorer countries share the traits (free education) to which Eia attributes Nordic countries' success. Third, metrics: Is rich people per capita really a good measure, or is median household earning? In fact, the US still scored high on Eia's lists. The US standard of living is far higher than that of the EU--why isn't Eia lecturing other West Europeans? Fourth, facts: Education in the United States is expensive? While per-pupil spending in the US is indeed high, the first 13 years of education are free. Their low quality is often attributed to the unions, which Eia extolls. University education is expensive only at the top tiers; one can get a decent 4-year degree at quite reasonable cost. Finally, conclusions: How does Eia make the leap from effect (already dubious) to cause (unions and free education)? Eia mocks manual laborers in the US--so where does he expect illiterate Mexican immigrants to work? Where do the current Muslim migrants in Norway and Sweden work? This subject needs not a funny sociologist, but a boring economist capable of producing an econometric study.

brokenstitch : The problem I have here is that you're literally comparing 52 States to the equivalent of one state. That is to say that the US for example has 319 million people and Sweden has maybe 10 million. Norway I think has around 5 million. Anyway, I learned this trick in my first year of University. It's called statistical analysis and a former head of GM went on to explain over the course of 6 months, the basis behind manipulating data to produce an outcome. i.e. In simple terms drinking and driving is safer than driving and not drinking because only 1 in 3 accidents involved inebriated drivers. i.e. It's the show of numbers in a fallacious, yet true manner meant to manipulate, rather than truly educate. There's far to many factors involved in such an idea as this video represents to make a legitimate comparison based off of these "facts" alone. Humans kill people, therefor all humans are murderers; This is the sort of reasoning going on here which is pathetic. Sadly it preys upon the ego and racist/nationalist tendency of ignorant peoples.

sevencolours : Americans listen to these buffoons and liars who preselect data and draw causality from correlation, and think socialism will save them. Wrong! It can only work in homogenic societies with very high level of trust and strong work ethic, only a few countries on Earth can pull it off, others will fail! Ask Venezuelans.

Antonio : Now i'll move to Norway, 'cause i'm mexican, so...

Doc MC : Americans always thing they're really advanced but I keep reminding them, the only thing that's advanced is their military and the people behind it are probably not American themselves.

Chraman : 1. Make a list of the countries with the most billionaires per capita 2. Announce that you excluded countries with low taxes 3. Be happy because there are only countries with high taxes on the list.

Delphinium Flower : There is another way to interpret this data, a way which tells a different story. The Scandinavian middle class, as exemplified by Harald Eia's engineer father, are earning considerably less than their counterparts in the USA. The money for the Scandinavian welfare state is coming from the pockets of the middle class, not from the wealthy upper class multi-millionaires and billionaires. A prosperous middle class poses a competitive threat to the wealthy upper class, but the Scandinavian upper class has found a way to keep the middle class "in their place". Everyone benefits from the free education, but the middle class pay the bill. The result is a somewhat larger and uber-wealthy upper class, and a middle class that is kept in harness. In Scandinavia, you have socialism for the poor and middle class, and oligarchy for the wealthy upper class.

Petar Stamenkovic : After learning about economy and human’s biology and psychology, what this speaker proposes does not only appear counter intuitive, it looks plainly absurd and wrong. Please help me spot my own ignorance about this. Let’s go over his 3 point plan to make people rich, and what I see as wrong with each point. 1. High taxes. These ensure that rich people pay a lot and thus support lower income people. Seems fair, until you realize how absurd and backwards this takes things. Let’s go step by step. For any poor person to get rich, they not only need good schooling (fair point on his part)- they need to have saved enough money beforehand and has the guts to try something crazy- to start a new business. Because the _vast_ majority of businesses fail, what is the incentive for _anyone_ not already rich- to try harder? What is the incentive to innovate? Try to produce new service or good? None you answer? So, do the European tech firms and startups. They are, as you would expect given the welfare economy, few are far between. You prefer Scandinavian medicine? Where do the innovations come from? The only place that has high monetary incentives. Scandinavia piggyback rides US innovation to stay afloat. High taxes are absolute catastrophe for innovation and new businesses. 2. Strong unions/ high minimum wage. What do you do if you want people to smoke less? How about consume less sugary drinks? You increase their price. When you increase price of something, you lower the demand for that thing. Seems only logical, right? Now you increase the price of low skill labor, what do you get? People out of work, as the speaker proudly shows. All those low skilled/low paying jobs are unprofitable, so they disappear. So far, it looks like we all agree on this. However, what happens to these people that lost their job? They get a new better one. Ok. Where? Even the speaker acknowledges that innovation drives demand for more complex and demanding jobs. What about all the people that don’t have enough cognitive capacity to retrain or learn anything more difficult? As is, US military does not hire people below of IQ of 83. That's 10% of US population. They are so inept that US army, that is desperate for new participants, cannot use them. Using automation like the speaker proposes, increases that limit to the IQ 90- at the _very_ least. What do these unhirable people do? They just live their life off the government benefits? Even if you ignore the monetary cost of sustaining 20% of unhirable population, this is devastating to the human capital- the actual humans this is supposed to be helping. To be well, people _need_ to work. They _have to_ feel like they are useful and contributing. Simply throwing money away to keep these people afloat will make them miserable and depressed- even if they are properly fed and sheltered. This too is a recipe for disaster. This is why Scandinavian people are the most depressed and isolated- among other things. Their own self reporting of happiness is one thing you hear most often, but their suicide and mental depression rates, paint quite a different picture. Sure you _could_ blame the weather. From where I’m sitting, weather looks like the least guilty party. 3. Generous welfare state. Even if ignore the devastating mistakes of # 1 and 2, this alone is catastrophic on its own. People get taken care of regardless of merit. A person that has worked all their life in Sweden, for example, has the same apartment, pension and benefits as a newly arrived refugee. This creates a lot of resentment and further divides, already divided people. With high mercy and low or nonexistent justice, people can’t help but feel betrayed. And this is the cost of human capital and speaks nothing of actual monetary policy that incentivizes people to be complacent and dependent on the state to create and upkeep jobs. This sort of economy is unsustainable and doomed to fail. Thank you for reading.

Victor Charlie : so I guess it's easy to get rich in Scandinavia and hard to stay rich.

C romana : The question should be: Where can people who don't aspire to be rich but want the normal things in life, find this without working like slaves?

Michael Whang : Left out very important factors like cultural/racial diversity, cultural norms(parenting or even having both parents), and size of bureaucracy, etc. Oh, and btw, which country has the best university institutions?

Dinesh Kumar Takyar : Very interesting...

andik70 : 5:04 : leaving out Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore .... come on... Probably you made the real list first and then looked for a reason to exclude the countries on top which didnt show up with a large social welfare system. And you technically found that countries with low social welfare are also low in tax. So you just label them 'pure tax havens' and dismiss them. (with cypruss I could actually agree). Hope you could do better and try not to mislead the audience in such a way.

Mana Montana : someone should tell the Venezuelan people that socialism works

rockYhre : Go to Bulgaria, Vietnam, Russia, Serbia and ask how their "social" democracies are doing.

TheAsianRepublican : Scandinavia is a homogenous society on a small landmass, Norway only has 4.5 million people versus 327 million in the US, and at the extreme bottom 10%, its doesn't become proportional when supporting 32 million uneducated versus 450,000. how many more free universities would we need to build? its not a linear equation, population problems are often logarithmic in nature, meaning at a particular threshold it skyrockets. why problems in the USA can not be solved using Scandinavian solutions, different set if variables

Rokas S : I'd say it's "Here in my garage"

anonymkille anonymsson : TedX seems very Democratic biased.. i live in sweden, and i want 1% taxes as it was in the roman empire.. Taxes are theft, no matter how he describes it.

icl : You forgot to mention that having very reduced populations (like in all Scandinavian countries) makes it much easier to modenise, apply new policies and adapt to new times than in huge countries with enormous inertia like the US.

Antonio Chiappetta : so let me understand this, the engineer in Sweden makes less money than the one in the US. He also pays higher taxes, but yet he's richer? Bullshiet!!!

AminCad : It's also worth noting that his analysis leaves out ethnicity as a possible factor in success. Americans of Swedish heritage are wealthier than Swedes for example, and wealthier than the average American.

YUNOCHECKMYCHANNEL : Google 'economic freedom index', the US has been in a freefall for decades in the rankings while Scandinavian countries have steadily climbed up to the top of the list. The US is less free market than most Scandinavian countries, so the whole premise of this talk is incorrect. Wouldn't expect a sociologist to look that far for answers though.

lsf2000 : All jokes aside, TEDx is supposed to be serious and not cooked up statistics. I hope no one takes this seriously.

Alex T : Good video, but your assumptions about USA are incorrect. I live in Atlanta and we are not as progressive as most of the USA. But: * You never see a person working in a restroom, unless its a fancy club * Nobody has been using checks for decades (except for some elderly), we went from using slide credit cards to chip credit cards. * Most toll plazas are automatic, but not all. * All big grocery stores have automatic check out, but they also have lines where you interact with humans who bag groceries for you. Nothing wrong with that.

Fillype Farias : The nordic secret never was about government administration since these people that emigrate many decades ago are so rich as well on their own new countries (and even more in USA according to an study). The secret is much more the influence of protestant culture that came some time ago that affects family, labor and confidence in people and institutions. All these stuffs are like a tabu for economists.

jabloko992 : Time to learn Swedish and get packing. It's not gonna leave the EU, right?

Jason Breslow : You had me until you said the US is switching to chip and PIN cards because we no longer want to write paper checks. Do you really think we'd finish dinner, whip out our check books, and cut a check for the meal? This makes me question the amount of research you did for this talk. The US is switching FROM magnetic strip cards TO chip and PIN cards because of security flaws with the magnetic strip technology. The chip and PIN system is a more secure way to conduct transactions, making fraud less prevalent, meaning less money lost by the banks in fraudulent charges.

Askformoreinfo whichyouwontget : oh god.. we should fund more people like him :)) It was a delight hearing him

Quespa : The US has not been a free market for over 60 years. The taxes are sky high, and the government intervenes massively.

mitch-a-palooza : What he mentions but fails to make a point of is that his engineer uncle would have been much better off (ie. more rich) in the US than in Norway, and also adjusted for purchasing power the difference would have been much greater than the numerical salary gap. Norway is the country in the world were it pays off the least to have higher education, and especially higher professional education. Norway is heaven for those with little education, the trades and those on social welfare. However, if you have higher professional education then Norway is far from the easiest country to get rich in. Also, when he talks about new technology, very little of that has been invented and developed in Norway, granted the US is lagging behind on banking technology.

Chraman : Norway has about twice the cost of living than the U.S. When the people earn 30% less, they can afford 60% less.

AminCad : Given Sweden was the third richest country in the world in 1967, and given Norway's oil wealth, this is hardly surprising. he also conveniently leaves out 'tax havens' like Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore, the last two of which caught up to the developed nations of Western Europe from way back in the wealth rankings in the 1950s, to almost at par in some categories, and surpassing in others, today.

XxxKinetypicXxx : This doesn´t apply for a third world country where our politicians steals the GDP u.u